Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgirdley | Hacker News Reader

I think there's a wide spectrum of bootcamps. Some are elite and some aren't.

It's important to recognize bootcamp grads for what they are: people who've been coding for 3-4 months max. Many folks expect them to be seasoned devs with 5 yrs experience but they truly are entry-level.

Most people, as I said, are missing motivation, structure, connections and auto-didactic skills to even get to the point of doing Hello World.

[Oh, and if you interviewed someone who'd been to a 4-week (?) bootcamp, that explains why they couldn't do much. Nothing great in life is accomplished by working for 4-weeks.]

View on HN

Can I ask what bootcamp?

I'm a technical recruiter in Chicago and see a lot of Bootcamp resumes come across my desk. I placed a dev bootcamp developer once but other then that I haven't been able to get them interviews because of the stigma behind bootcamps.

My theory has been that people with a math or science degree that join a bootcamp are much more likely to get a job than those from other walks of life. Do you see this as well?

The question isn't bootcamp vs STEM Bachelors. It is STEM bootcsmp vs English Bachelors or No Bachelors.

Boot camp is essentially equivalent to one good semester of college. The most calale first-year college students are ready for a internship, not professional programming job.

I used to be in the "eff college do bootcamp" side of things. I think that's wrong now. Young people need some of what college gives you and also what bootcamps provide -- if they want a coding career.

Codeup in Texas. A tiny percentage of our grads are placed by recruiters -- and that's OK.

We don't really see that. The grads who can build a real portfolio of work and are likable get hired the quickest.

I had to look up "didactic" to remember what it meant, and I learned that it has a negative connotation (according to this one dictionary, at least)

http://i.word.com/idictionary/didactic

"autodidactic" is "autodidact" + "-ic" rather than "auto-" + "didactic"; this is not a pedantic distinction because "autodidact" has mostly positive connotations, whereas "didactic", as you note, often has connotations of unwanted moralising.

English drives me crazy and it's my native tongue

the same features make it a wonderfully fun language though :) my favourite example of how building up a word differently changes its meaning is inflammable (inflame + -able, rather than in- + flammable)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com